Decisions in Criminal, Juvenile & Employment Matters

By FindLaw Staff on January 14, 2011 12:26 PM

People v. Hill, A117787, Defendant's convictions and sentences for offenses related to killing an undercover police officer and wounding another, is affirmed as, the trial court's determination that a witness could testify on direct examination about the out-of-court statements he relied on forming certain of his opinions in concluding that such statements did not come in for their truth, but only to assist the jury in evaluating the witness's opinions, rests on relevant Supreme Court precedent.

People v. Higgins, D055649,
concerned a challenge to a defendant's convictions for burglary of an
inhabited dwelling, assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to
cause great bodily injury, and assault with a firearm. The court
reversed the convictions in concluding that the prosecutor engaged in a
pervasive pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally
unfair.

In re Jose T., A128020,
concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's jurisdictional and
dispositional order in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602
proceeding declaring wardship and committing the minor defendant to the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for aggravated assault. In vacating
the judgment, the court held that the juvenile court automatically, and
erroneously, imposed a previously suspended DJJ commitment. On remand,
the juvenile court is directed to evaluate the appropriate placement for
the defendant including whether to impose the previously suspended DJJ
commitment based upon current factors and circumstances.

Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC, C059133,
concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment in favor of a
defendant in an action for sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful
termination, violation of the right to privacy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

In affirming the judgment, the court held that the e-mails sent by
plaintiff to her attorney regarding possible legal action against
defendants did not constitute "confidential communication between client
and lawyer" within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952 because, by
using the company's computer to communicate with her lawyer, knowing
the communications violated company computer policy and could be
discovered by her employer due to company monitoring of e-mail usage,
plaintiff did not communicate in confidence by means which, so far as
the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other
than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the
consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for
the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose
for which the lawyer is consulted.

Category:

Tags:

About California Case Law

California Case Law features news and information from the Supreme Court of California and the California Courts of Appeal, as well as news that would be of interest to legal professionals practicing in California. Have a comment or tip? Write to us.